# Surya Narayan v. Board of Revenue & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 575
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-16
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 7018 of 2025
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/surya-narayan-v-board-of-revenue-ors-53941
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

1 All. Surya Narayan Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
575

(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of
fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights
and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR
553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)] ,
wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which
requires,

"adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions".

(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents
for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is
of the essence and is virtually a part of "due process".

15. The order passed by the District Commission allowing the complaint without dealing with
the defence of the Insurance Company and not accepting the valid defence based on the terms of
the contract insurance without assigning any reason, is an order which suffers from illegality and
material irregularity. The National Commission has rightly interfered with such an order in exercise
of its revisional jurisdiction and has corrected the apparent error committed by the District
Commission and upheld by the State Commission by setting aside the orders and dismissing the
complaint.

16. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find no error or illegality in the impugned order
passed by the National Commission. The petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 575
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 7018 of 2025

Surya Narayan ...Petitioner
Versus
Board of Revenue & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Board of Revenue has concluded the hearing and reserved the matter for judgment on 15.09.2025 AND even
after expiry of four months from the date of reserving the judgment, the judgment has not been pronounced
and therefore in the present writ petition prayer has been made for direction to the Board of Revenue to
pronounce the judgment in the said case with expedition.

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article 227; The Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006-Sections
24(4) & 210- The Apex Court in the case of Ravindra Pratap Sahi Vs. State of U.P. and Others,
576 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Criminal Appeal No. 3700/3701 of 2025, wherein citing the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Anil Rai, the Apex Court was of the view that judgment should be pronounced within a
period of three months. It was further observed that in case the judgments are not pronounced,
then within two weeks of the fact been brought to the knowledge of the respective Bench, the
matter ought to be assigned to another Bench.
Held- Petition is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to bring this judgment to the knowledge of the
Board of Revenue. In case judgment is not pronounced within two weeks from the date of production of
certified copy of this order, the matter shall be assigned to another Bench of the Board of Revenue for being
heard and decided in terms of various directions issued by the Apex Court as well as directions issued in the
present case. (Para 7, 8 & 9) (E-15)

Case Law Cited
Ravindra Pratap Sahi Vs. State of U.P. and Others, Criminal Appeal No. 3700/3701 of 2025 (decided on
25.08.2025); Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar, 2001 (7) SCC 318

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950; The Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006

List of Keywords
Reserving a judgment and time period consumed for its pronouncement; Judgment should be pronounced
within a period of three months; From the date they are reserved

Case Arising From
An appeal under Section 24(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Commissioner, Ayodhya Division,
Ayodhya, which was rejected on 03.01.2025, which order in turn was assailed before the Board of Revenue by
filing revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Saryu Prasad Tiwari, Prince Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohan Singh

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Sri Saryu Prasad Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 3.

2. In the light of proposed order notice to private respondent is dispensed with.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no. 4 had filed an
appeal under Section 24(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Commissioner, Ayodhya
Division, Ayodhya, which was rejected on 03.01.2025, which order in turn was assailed before the
Board of Revenue by filing revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 by
respondent no. 4.

4. It has been submitted that interim order was passed on 04.02.2025 and records were also
summoned. It has been submitted that when the proceedings before the Board of Revenue were not
concluded expeditiously, consequently, writ petition was filed by the petitioner being Writ Petition
No. 4826 of 2025, before this Court which was disposed of by order dated 12.08.2025, giving
1 All. Surya Narayan Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
577
liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application before the trial Court within next two weeks
for expediting the proceedings.

5. It has been submitted that the Board of Revenue has concluded the hearing and reserved the matter for
judgment on 15.09.2025 and which fact is evident from the status of the said case which has been obtained by the
petitioner on-line. It has been submitted that even after expiry of four months from the date of reserving the
judgment, the judgment has not been pronounced and therefore in the present writ petition prayer has been made
for direction to the Board of Revenue to pronounce the judgment in the said case with expedition.

6. The issue pertaining to reserving a judgment and time period consumed for its pronouncement has
been subject matter which has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of cases. In the case
of Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar, 2001 (7) SCC 318, the said issue came to be noticed by the Apex Court
which pertains to the matters which were pending before the various High Courts where arguments have
been concluded but the judgment has not been pronounced for sufficient length of time and in the aforesaid
circumstances, the Apex Court had observed as under :-

"9. It is true, that for the High Courts, no period for pronouncement of judgment is contemplated
either under the Civil Procedure Code or the Criminal Procedure Code, but as the pronouncement of the
judgment is a part of the justice dispensation system, it has to be without delay. In a country like ours where
people consider the Judges only second to God, efforts be made to strengthen that belief of the common man.
Delay in disposal of the cases facilitates the people to raise eyebrows, sometimes genuinely which, if not
checked, may shake the confidence of the people in the judicial system. A time has come when the judiciary
itself has to assert for preserving its stature, respect and regards for the attainment of the rule of law. For the
fault of a few, the glorious and glittering name of the judiciary cannot be permitted to be made ugly. It is the
policy and purpose of law, to have speedy justice for which efforts are required to be made to come up to the
expectation of the society of ensuring speedy, untainted and unpolluted justice.

10. Under the prevalent circumstances in some of the High Courts, I feel it appropriate to provide
some guidelines regarding the pronouncement of judgments which, I am sure, shall be followed by all
concerned, being the mandate of this Court. Such guidelines, as for the present, are as under:

(i) The Chief Justices of the High Courts may issue appropriate directions to the Registry that in a
case where the judgment is reserved and is pronounced later, a column be added in the judgment where, on
the first page, after the cause-title, date of reserving the judgment and date of pronouncing it be separately
mentioned by the Court Officer concerned.

(ii) That Chief Justices of the High Courts, on their administrative side, should direct the Court
Officers/Readers of the various Benches in the High Courts to furnish every month the list of cases in the
matters where the judgments reserved are not pronounced within the period of that month.

(iii) On noticing that after conclusion of the arguments the judgment is not pronounced within a
period of two months, the Chief Justice concerned shall draw the attention of the Bench concerned to the
pending matter. The Chief Justice may also see the desirability of circulating the statement of such cases in
which the judgments have not been pronounced within a period of six weeks from the date of conclusion of
578 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the arguments amongst the Judges of the High Court for their information. Such communication be conveyed
as confidential and in a sealed cover.

(iv) Where a judgment is not pronounced within three months from the date of reserving it, any of
the parties in the case is permitted to file an application in the High Court with a prayer for early judgment.
Such application, as and when filed, shall be listed before the Bench concerned within two days excluding the
intervening holidays.

(v) If the judgment, for any reason, is not pronounced within a period of six months, any of the
parties of the said lis shall be entitled to move an application before the Chief Justice of the High Court with
a prayer to withdraw the said case and to make it over to any other Bench for fresh arguments. It is open to
the Chief Justice to grant the said prayer or to pass any other order as he deems fit in the circumstances."

7. This aspect of the matter was again considered by the Apex Court in the case of Ravindra Pratap
Sahi Vs. State of U.P. and Others, Criminal Appeal No. 3700/3701 of 2025 (decided on 25.08.2025),
wherein citing the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Anil Rai (supra), the Apex Court was of the
view that judgment should be pronounced within a period of three months. It was further observed that in
case the judgments are not pronounced, then within two weeks of the fact been brought to the knowledge of
the respective Bench, the matter ought to be assigned to another Bench.

8. This Court see no reason as to why the said pronouncement be also made applicable to the revenue
Courts including the Board of Revenue, who are directed to pronounce judgments within a period of three
months from the date they are reserved.

9. Accordingly, in view of the arguments of the respective counsels as well as taking into account
various directions of the Apex Court, present writ petition is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to
bring this judgment to the knowledge of the Board of Revenue. In case judgment is not pronounced within
two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order, the matter shall be assigned to another
Bench of the Board of Revenue for being heard and decided in terms of various directions issued by the
Apex Court as well as directions issued in the present case.

10. Let a copy of the present judgment be also placed before the Chairman, Board of Revenue, U.P.
Lucknow by the office of learned Chief Standing Counsel, forthwith.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 578
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.01.2026

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 7293 of 2025

Smt. Kamla Verma & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
A.D.J.-XII Lko. & Ors. ...Respondents